Share this story

The proprietor of one of the sleaziest "revenge porn" websites has gone public in a big way. The 28-year-old Colorado Springs man who created the site IsAnybodyDown, Craig Brittain, has been featured in a report airing on Denver TV station CBS4. Reporter Brian Maass also interviewed two women who were featured on the site against their will, and the station says it has been in contact with a half-dozen Colorado women in the same situation.

IsAnybodyDown posts revealing pictures, mostly of women, without their consent, along with their full names and identifying information like phone numbers and Facebook snapshots. If they want to get off the site, victims are directed to a takedown "service" that costs $250. The site is an even sleazier, and possibly more extortionate, version of Hunter Moore's famous site "IsAnybodyUp." (Moore's site has since gone dark, but he's hardly worse for the wear; he's even working on creating his own TV show.)

In the interview, Brittain said his site should just be considered "entertainment" and not extortion. He was also straightforward about his desire to turn the controversial business of "involuntary porn" into a big moneymaker. As for the Facebook information he solicits and posts, Brittain said he just wants readers to get a more holistic view of "who the women are and what they are about," according to the CBS report.

“We don’t want anyone shamed or hurt. We just want the pictures there for entertainment purposes and business," said Brittain, who said he makes $3,000 per month off the site. "I would say our business goal is to become big and profitable... We’re not out for revenge or being malicious. We just want entertainment, we want the money, we’re after making the buck."

Brittain also countered persistent allegations that the supposed "takedown lawyer" David Blade III, who will help women get off the site, doesn't exist. When the CBS reporter asked Brittain if he was actually Blade, Brittain said, “I’m not. Not true at all.”

That contradicts a forensic expert approached by CBS who looked at Blade's e-mails. The expert said that they were “likely sent not just from the same IP address, but from the same computer.”

When asked whether he thought what he was doing was "really sleazy," Brittain offered this: “We live in a really sleazy society.”

CBS4-Denver's interview with Brittain is scheduled to air at 10:00pm tonight, Colorado time. The station also plans to put the raw footage of Maass' nearly one-hour interview with Brittain online.

Will copyright be the tool that pummels IsAnybodyDown?

So-called "involuntary porn" sites are certainly pushing the legal boundaries of free speech—especially when they include thinly veiled attempts to wring money from the people portrayed. One question that springs to mind when hearing stories of those like the victims who spoke with Maass: since they took the photos themselves, couldn't copyright law be a tool for getting their content off the site?

Copyright law is intended to promote the production of more creative works; it isn't really meant for shutting down questionable activities like "revenge porn." And Marc Randazza, an attorney who's been out to get Brittain since learning about the site, is aware of that. "But when it comes down to it, someone owns that photograph, and it [Brittain's use] sure isn't fair use," Randazza said. In fact, he believes that copyright law "will probably be [Brittain's] downfall."

Photographs are automatically copyrighted by their "author," typically the person who took the photo, as soon as they are created. However, before a copyright infringement lawsuit can be filed, the owner of the photo has to register the work with the Copyright Office. That process can take a few months.

The burden of going through that process—and the wait involved—is what often pushes victims on IsAnybodyDown to just pay $250 to the "takedown lawyer" advertised on the site, Randazza said. Lots of people end up paying, despite the fact Randazza has offered to represent victims pro bono.

"I have heard from girls who said they paid him," Randazza told Ars today. "The problem is, if you pay him, how do you know he's going to dispose of your photographs, even if he promises he does? He was already impersonating a lawyer. Do you think he's not holding on to the pictures?"

Not everyone has been deterred, however.

"I can tell you, there are a number of people ready to file suit as soon as their copyright registration comes in the mail," Randazza said. "I told this guy I was coming for him, and I don't break my word."

A finding of copyright infringement could lead to huge damages against Brittain—up to $150,000 per work for willful infringement.

Some sites can claim a "safe harbor" from copyright litigation under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) if they do certain things, like promptly respond to takedown notices. But a site like IsAnybodyDown, which doesn't even have a DMCA agent to contact about a takedown, is a long way from being able to claim that safe harbor.

In addition to pursuing the copyright angle, Randazza said he's working with two victims who say they were under 18 in photos that have been featured on IsAnybodyDown. If that's true, Brittain might be liable under child pornography laws, which could lead to even larger civil penalties or worse. "It's difficult to get law enforcement to care about a lot of things, but they get interested in child pornography cases," said Randazza.

For victims who didn't take their own photos, a tougher path

Many of the photos on the site are clearly owned by the women they are portraying—both victims who spoke to CBS4-Denver, for example, took the photos themselves.

But not all of those portrayed on these sites did take their own pictures. The term "revenge porn" originated because victims often suspect the pictures are put on such sites by jilted ex-lovers.

Copyright law allows for large damage awards and often for the collection of attorneys' fees. For a victim of "revenge porn" who didn't take the photo, however, it might be tougher to take legal action. Other laws that could conceivably be broken, like defamation or invasion of privacy, don't have the large damage awards that make filing a copyright suit attractive to lawyers. In addition, these sites may have a defense in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which prevents sites from being held liable for user-posted content.

Other lawyers appear willing to take a gamble that they can beat away any Section 230 defense as well. Two women who were featured against their will on a site called Texxxan.com filed a lawsuit last month alleging invasion of privacy.

However, those who don't own the copyright to their photos are at a disadvantage. Using something like a privacy claim or a right of publicity claim to go after a revenge porn entrepreneur is going to be more difficult, Randazza acknowledged. "They're a little harder, and they don't have the same sledgehammer effect [as copyright]," he said.

404 Reader Comments

Really though, vuvu, you're insisting on things being quantitative it binary that just aren't. There is a qualitative difference between posting a copy of Spider-Man 2 online and posting (without her content) a picture of your mom's hairy snatch. The harm is different.

Though again, empathy is required to understand why the former does damage that is basically only measured in dollars, while the damage from the latter is personal and emotional (though may still carry a dollar value as well).

I'm really stretching to see the difference. Neither party wants what stuff on the internet, but it's okay for Spiderman 2 to be thrown out there, but it's more wrong because it's dear old mum.

Fine, use the argument that the makers of Spiderman 2 wanted their stuff to be published, so it's no different. Try not to use that argument when I point out the hypocricy of people cheering the unauthorized release of the U.S. State Dept cables on Wikileaks, but decrying the unauthorized pictures of me dear mum on IsAnybodyDown, because I'm sure the American gov't did not want that stuff all over the internet either.

After all, you can only really feel bad if you actually are ashamed. If you don't see any shame in what you do, then there's no real issue.

Have to hope you are kidding there.

Do you have no concept of the private and the public?There are acts which are entirely moral but which almost all people would choose to keep away from the public view.In fact, so many people would choose to keep things out of general view, that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding records of them.

Perhaps at the end of a bitter divorce, a former spouse is within their rights to destroy all goods left behind for one afternoon by the ex spouse?

Obviously I can't speak for TD, but I think the concept here is that what qualifies as private and public is a shifting target. Technology is evolving and society is evolving along with it. The things that we, the older generations, value as private aren't necessarily the same as what the young generation values keeping private. As those kinds of changes propagate through society, what one generation might see as abhorrent to be posted online in public, the next might see as normal to publicly display. Future generations might get to the point where no one will care if their ex posts nude pics of them engaged in sexual acts in the same way that I don't care if a woman scandalously displays her bare ankles.

I was about to mention the same.He said to be in a "competing tribe", sounds like having a site similar to Isanybodydown or trying to deflect involvement.Makes absurd arguments, mentioning Facebook like some kind of precedent in privacy abuse that justifies this sort of crap. He either is trolling, has issues, or something at stake.

You just don't know how it is in his world, what with his tribe struggling for survival. The slightest mistake, like one of the tribal females exposing their shame for others to see, could endanger the tribe's very existence.

It would be so nice if you would prefer an intellectual discussion to being a deflective, sarcastic ass hat. But hey whatever floats your boat.

Are you actually going to explain what you meant originally, or are you just going to bitch and moan about people responding to what they think you meant?

I'm really stretching to see the difference. Neither party wants what stuff on the internet, but it's okay for Spiderman 2 to be thrown out there, but it's more wrong because it's dear old mum.

Actually, the publisher of Spiderman 2 wants Spiderman 2 on the internet. It's probably on iTunes, Amazon VOD, as well as various cable and satellite providers on-demand.

We're making the assumption here that your mom doesn't actually work as an actress in porn. Maybe she does, I don't know you. But if we're talking about movies she's willingly published that are being distributed without compensation, that is a different discussion, and a different harm.

Quote:

Fine, use the argument that the makers of Spiderman 2 wanted their stuff to be published, so it's no different. Try not to use that argument when I point out the hypocricy of people cheering the unauthorized release of the U.S. State Dept cables on Wikileaks, but decrying the unauthorized pictures of me dear mum on IsAnybodyDown, because I'm sure the American gov't did not want that stuff all over the internet either.

Also, if you have to "stretch" to see the difference, then you are a pretty standard example of the kind of empathy-averse maladjusted misanthropes that are far too common around here (though not universal).

The problem here is that the technology and the consequences of using said technology are completely new for this generation of young people. Young people have always done stupid, embarrassing things, especially when alcohol was involved. However, there were no social networks or mass distribution mechanisms available to earlier generations, so the damage caused by someone getting hold of a compromising photo was minimal. Contrast that with today's technology; everyone carries a cell phone which includes a camera, and the ability to make photos or videos available to thousands, if not millions of people is readily available. It's as simple as uploading a photo to one of numerous social networking sites or image hosts or uploading a video to YouTube, both of which can be done directly from your cell phone.

I expect that today's youth will warn their progeny about the dangers of taking compromising photos, but today's youth didn't receive the same warnings and wisdom from their parents. Their parents simply didn't have to deal with the dangers of current technology because it didn't exist back then.

Er, no. I mean, I was never specifically warned "don't take naked pictures of yourself with your cell phone camera", but I guess I kind of picked it up from the obvious fact that it was a terrible idea.

However, I think you might be a bit confused. While yes, one possibilty is the warnings, the other is quite the opposite. The less privacy we have, the less important it becomes; when everyone has secrets, losing your privacy hurts. When no one has secrets, as a society you simply cease to care about those things. The fundamental assumptions of society change. I would tend to argue we're seeing less privacy and more openness, and that's not actually a bad thing.

After all, you can only really feel bad if you actually are ashamed. If you don't see any shame in what you do, then there's no real issue.

I can't believe I'm actually in agreement with TD on something, but there it is. (New) technology and the consequences of using said (new) technology are completely (not) new for (any) generation of young people. Every generation deals with adapting to new situations that their parents have no frame of reference for dealing with. One thing that is painfully obvious to me is that young people do not have the same expectation of privacy that I did growing up. They just don't care about privacy they way I do. The current young generation already doesn't care about privacy in regards to Facebook posts, targeted advertising, etc. I think it's very likely that the generation that follows them won't care about naked photos being posted online. They will be more open about their sexuality than the current crop of young people, in the same way they are more open about their sexuality than me and I am more open about my sexuality than my parents, etc.

While what you say is true to a degree, you are greatly over-estimating that degree. Yes, it is true that each new generation of young people has to deal with new kinds of challenges that their parents did not have. However, the rapid progress in technology in regard to personal computers and the Internet has completely changed many aspects of our lives in a very short span of time. Communication and data exchange have undergone a complete revolution, not an evolution. Has there been a time in human history when technology has progressed at a faster rate than it has in the last few decades? Can you really trivialize the effects that this technology has had (and will have in the coming decades) on our society?

I also think you greatly exaggerate the degree to which people are willing to give up their privacy. I'd be willing to wager that the only reason that people submit to current invasions of privacy is due to their relative ignorance on what information is collected on them and the dangers involved. How many youths, for example, think that uploading (or one of their friends uploading) a compromising picture to Facebook isn't a big deal because only their "friends" can see the photo? Or how about adults who naively leave a message on their Facebook wall about going on vacation, only to come back to a house which has been pillaged by burglars? A lot of people simply don't understand how easy it is for anyone to access personal information about them online and, worse, how easy it is for bad people to misuse that information, commit identity theft, etc.

Even if newer generations are more open about their sexuality, as you posit, that still doesn't mean they want their personal information leaking out. Just because someone is completely comfortable with their body doesn't mean they want potential stalkers and sexual predators ogling over their photos and gaining access to their real names, addresses, and phone numbers. There is still plenty of reason to safeguard personal information in a more sexually-liberated society than our current one.

Also, if you have to "stretch" to see the difference, then you are a pretty standard example of the kind of empathy-averse maladjusted misanthropes that are far too common around here (though not universal).

EDIT: a bloo bloo bloo dude...I can hear you typing now.

You have such wonderful ears. And I do have empathy. It hurts me to hear you say such bad things about me. It just disappoints me that the peanut gallery have let their emotions cloud their opinions. Comments aren't based on a reasoned thinking (as if they ever were to begin with).

Considering all of the embarrassing things that managed to find their way on Facebook (and I'm excluding the embarrasing things people post by themselves), I'm disappointed that nobody's called to have it shut down, or to put a bullet in Mark Zuckerburg's head. And people have committed suicide over what malicious people spread on Facebook, which has way more exposure on the web than IsAnybodyDown.

but I think the concept here is that what qualifies as private and public is a shifting target. . , the next might see as normal to publicly display. Future generations might get to the point where no one will care if their ex posts nude pics of them engaged in sexual acts in the same way that I don't care if a woman scandalously displays her bare ankles.

This argument is made less strong by the very existence of websites like the one being discussed. Its existence is evidence of the prurient interest in what "should be" private. The owner knows that bad feelings and revenge-seeking exist and wants to profit from it. It would not be revenge if the public/private distinction no longer existed.

As an example from an older generation:No-one would want their love letters read out to acquiantances. Even if said letters didn't have details of sexual activities and preferences but simply detailed the emotions, it would still be embarassing. This is an exchange of information which is not immoral but everyone would prefer that it stay private.

Also, if you have to "stretch" to see the difference, then you are a pretty standard example of the kind of empathy-averse maladjusted misanthropes that are far too common around here (though not universal).

EDIT: a bloo bloo bloo dude...I can hear you typing now.

You have such wonderful ears. And I do have empathy. It hurts me to hear you say such bad things about me. It just disappoints me that the peanut gallery have let their emotions cloud their opinions. Comments aren't based on a reasoned thinking (as if they ever were to begin with).

Considering all of the embarrassing things that managed to find their way on Facebook (and I'm excluding the embarrasing things people post by themselves), I'm disappointed that nobody's called to have it shut down, or to put a bullet in Mark Zuckerburg's head. And people have committed suicide over what malicious people spread on Facebook, which has way more exposure on the web than IsAnybodyDown.

But then again, I should be thinking of the damsels.

Again, there are guys on IAD too. This "damsel" thing is a great insight into your psyche, but not much of an argument. I suppose we do tend to focus on the female victims here, since that's the majority, but that's not really what it's about.

So let's make it pics of your dad then.

The gender isn't relevant. Posting explicit images of anybody without their consent will lead to different harm that distributing copies of a published film without compensation.

Which I still generally oppose anyway, but whatevs.

EDIT: Last I checked, BTW, Zuckerberg wasn't providing a link to a "takedown lawyer" to get your pictures off his site. Instead, he gives you the ability to (at least) untag yourself from an image, and then presumably to eventually get it removed. I don't think they charge money for this. But sure, equate Facebook to IAD. That doesn't make you look stupid at all.

but I think the concept here is that what qualifies as private and public is a shifting target. . , the next might see as normal to publicly display. Future generations might get to the point where no one will care if their ex posts nude pics of them engaged in sexual acts in the same way that I don't care if a woman scandalously displays her bare ankles.

This argument is made less strong by the very existence of websites like the one being discussed. Its existence is evidence of the prurient interest in what "should be" private. The owner knows that bad feelings and revenge-seeking exist and wants to profit from it. It would not be revenge if the public/private distinction no longer existed.

I wrote that in response to the particular part you quoted from TD and your response to it, not as a response to the article in general or the concept of what the web site is doing. It seemed like you were only addressing that one particular point since you didn't tie it back into the discussion at hand.

Now if you want to tie it in to the general discussion about the article ... naked pics are how this guy is exploiting revenge-seeking and bad feelings for a profit, they aren't integral to the process. In the future I think we can safely assume that those feelings and people trying to profit from them will still exist, they'll just have to rely on a different avenue if sexual modesty isn't a "thing" any more. The website "works", for now, because those changes haven't happened yet.

Amongst the tribes known as politicians, corporations, brands, religions, ideologies, and families what brings negative fallout is determined by that particular group…. even when said action was on the individual's own time (or intended to remain private). And it doesn't even matter if the individual person doesn't care. All that matters is if the group cares!

Petraeus and Clinton's affairs were private activities…without pictures no less…and yet they endangered their tribes.

Now I know at least two women wouldn't care about personal nude photos being published by their exes… but I'm sure their employers, current boyfriends and families would….

In some tribes… the mere posing for sexual photos is an endangermentIn other tribes… the publishing (even unintentionally) of those sexual photos is an endangerment.In other tribes…neither the taking nor publishing is an endangerment.

I am baffled that this is even an issue. In my opinion, anybody who does not want a photo of theirself to be posted online, in print, anywhere, should have every right to enforce that. It shouldn't be a question of "how do we fight this?" It should just be, "That's me. Take it down. Now." and he should have to comply or get thrown in prison.

Also, if you have to "stretch" to see the difference, then you are a pretty standard example of the kind of empathy-averse maladjusted misanthropes that are far too common around here (though not universal).

EDIT: a bloo bloo bloo dude...I can hear you typing now.

You have such wonderful ears. And I do have empathy. It hurts me to hear you say such bad things about me. It just disappoints me that the peanut gallery have let their emotions cloud their opinions. Comments aren't based on a reasoned thinking (as if they ever were to begin with).

Considering all of the embarrassing things that managed to find their way on Facebook (and I'm excluding the embarrasing things people post by themselves), I'm disappointed that nobody's called to have it shut down, or to put a bullet in Mark Zuckerburg's head. And people have committed suicide over what malicious people spread on Facebook, which has way more exposure on the web than IsAnybodyDown.

But then again, I should be thinking of the damsels.

Again, there are guys on IAD too. This "damsel" thing is a great insight into your psyche, but not much of an argument. I suppose we do tend to focus on the female victims here, since that's the majority, but that's not really what it's about.

So let's make it pics of your dad then.

The gender isn't relevant. Posting explicit images of anybody without their consent will lead to different harm that distributing copies of a published film without compensation.

And while it is wrong to post explicit images of anybody online, I have a hard time understanding why everybody turns on him, merely the man who hosts these images, and not the people who put such images on his site.

Is what he's doing any different than what Assange does with Wikileaks? Is he what he's doing any different than what Dotcom did with Megaupload? I think not, which is why I find it odd, to say the least to hear people want to do the same things to Brittain and IAD that they accuse and criticize the US government of wanting to do with Assange and Dotcom.

EDIT: Within social circles of facebook, untagging a user doesn't do anything to mitigate the damage of embarrassing pictures being posted there. If anything, leaving the photo untagged is probably worse because that picture will be out there without your knowledge. I'll change my stance about facebook when you can show me how to get an embarrassing picture of myself removed from somebody else's account.

"Hey Mr. Rapist and Mr. Stalker and Mr. Pervert, here is this womans address so pay her a visit". How creepy and wrong does something have to be before someone is not allowed to explain it away as 'entertainment' or free speech? How on earth does this guys brain even work, he's just as creepy and wrong as the perverts who prey on people only he has a web site to do it.

You haven't looked at a phone book recently, have you? This is nonsense. The added risk to the people is zero.

Quote:

You want to claim that one should look through the "prism of the American constitution" in considering this, well maybe then we should have looked through that same prism when we decided slavery was wrong, or hate speech was wrong, or sexual advances in the work place were wrong. When something is wrong its wrong, period, and this guy was wrong in putting up their names and addresses. I don't give a flying fart what people want to call it or how its claimed one should view it as free speech, its wrong.

Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal. In this case, though, the extortion aspect of it pushes it over the line.

I never mentioned the legal aspect, I though it obvious that this was over the line. You are correct, just because something is wrong does not mean its illegal, but some things that are wrong are illegal and some things that are wrong now are not illegal yet but there should be some protection under law against the effects of the "still legal" wrong thing.

Nope, I have not looked at the phone book lately but i'm pretty sure they don't include pictures of women in various stages of nudity (not including businesses) to make it more enticing. Considering the rapist, stalker fanatic and pervert all need a "visual" look at a possible victim because they all decide their intended target based upon what they see so just a name a address alone is not enough, the pictures give them just what they need to decide and on top of it it tells them where to find the target they decide on.

You have some magic formula that proves there is no risk? How do you know that some of those women have not already been targeted and victimized as a result as i'm pretty sure there were lots of pictures of women who may not know this was the source of them being targeted. Oh great we have your assurances the risk is zero, another nameless faceless person on the internet wants to assure us in his great experience there is zero risk.

Consider this, if it were a picture of your daughter, no matter how much of an error in judgement she made in doing the picture in the first place, if you are any kind of responsible parent you would be screaming to get this picture removed and for the guy to be made to understand just how wrong this is (at a minimum) and not running to protect his first amendment rights. Then on top of everything else the guy will extort $250.00 from you to have it removed and victimize you in doing so because he should not have put it up there in the first place.

And while it is wrong to post explicit images of anybody online, I have a hard time understanding why everybody turns on him, merely the man who hosts these images, and not the people who put such images on his site.

Because he doesn't "just host these images." He provides a means for those featured to get their images removed, for a fee. He's the one getting a paycheck out of exploitation and extortion.

The people posting the images in the first place are also utter douchebags, but they're anonymous douchebags, making it difficult to focus on them.

I'm siding with the 1st amendment... especially since this type of revenge site has been around since way back when don't date him girl went live.

I believe in free speech as much as the next guy, but the 1st Amendment should not shield Brittain from the consequences of his "speech". Otherwise, you would have to throw people's accountability for what they say out the window.

You do realize that's anti 1st amendment excuse #1 right. Accountability comes from the community....not from the government enforcers. In other words...it's up to the community to either shun this guy...or worry about more important stuff. It is not up to the fed to make him a felon!

When I think of "anti 1st Amendment", I think of censorship, not people taking responsibility for what they say and do.

Hypothetical example:If I go on national television and wrongfully accuse someone of a horrific crime, that person will always be under strict scrutiny unable to live a normal life ever again. I have exercised my right to free speech, but my speech have done unjust harm to another person. That is why libel is bad.

Recent, in RL example:Tactical Response CEO, James Yeager posted a heated YouTube video about gun regulations. In it, he claimed that if the government ever tried to take his guns, he would start "killing people". In response to this video, the Tennessee Department of Public Safety and Homeland Security have revoked his permit to carry. Yeager exercised his right to free speech, but the government felt threatened when he claimed he would start "killing people", and acted accordingly.

This discussion:Brittain is running a website which pornographic images of women are posted without their consent, allowing other users to dox the people in the images, and asking for the women's Facebook and Twitter information. Also, the site made an offer where this stuff would go away with these women paid a fee. You could say he's exercising free speech, but he is telling others to shame and exploit women. The site also presents a danger to the women on the site, as personal information can be used by stalkers who would want to do harm to those on the site.

And while it is wrong to post explicit images of anybody online, I have a hard time understanding why everybody turns on him, merely the man who hosts these images, and not the people who put such images on his site.

Because he doesn't "just host these images." He provides a means for those featured to get their images removed, for a fee. He's the one getting a paycheck out of exploitation and extortion.

The people posting the images in the first place are also utter douchebags, but they're anonymous douchebags, making it difficult to focus on them.

^-.-^

Perhaps you should bring this extortion angle up to a federal prosecutor. I heard they have nothing better to do with their time than send people to jail for a very long time for harmless computer crimes.

I can't imagine there's not a liability issue here even if the subject of the picture isn't the copyright holder. After all, I can't imagine all those jilted ex-lovers obtained a model release from their ex's before sending the photos to IsAnybodyDown.

And while it is wrong to post explicit images of anybody online, I have a hard time understanding why everybody turns on him, merely the man who hosts these images, and not the people who put such images on his site.

Because he doesn't "just host these images." He provides a means for those featured to get their images removed, for a fee. He's the one getting a paycheck out of exploitation and extortion.

The people posting the images in the first place are also utter douchebags, but they're anonymous douchebags, making it difficult to focus on them.

^-.-^

Perhaps you should bring this extortion angle up to a federal prosecutor. I heard they have nothing better to do with their time than send people to jail for a very long time for harmless computer crimes.

While what you say is true to a degree, you are greatly over-estimating that degree. Yes, it is true that each new generation of young people has to deal with new kinds of challenges that their parents did not have. However, the rapid progress in technology in regard to personal computers and the Internet has completely changed many aspects of our lives in a very short span of time. Communication and data exchange have undergone a complete revolution, not an evolution. Has there been a time in human history when technology has progressed at a faster rate than it has in the last few decades? Can you really trivialize the effects that this technology has had (and will have in the coming decades) on our society?

I'd argue that there are times in history where technology has resulted in way larger disruptions in society. An example that jumps to mind is the Industrial Revolution changing England from an agrarian and crafts-based society to one in which the vast majority of workers became a virtual cog in the machinery of industrial factories. This was a disruptive technological change that resulted in the formerly self-sufficient majority practising the arts of their forefathers virtually becoming slaves living in horrid conditions as grist for the industrial machine. This is something that happened over one or two generations, in comparison privacy concerns look like a small-potatoes first world problem.

chronomitch wrote:

I also think you greatly exaggerate the degree to which people are willing to give up their privacy. I'd be willing to wager that the only reason that people submit to current invasions of privacy is due to their relative ignorance on what information is collected on them and the dangers involved. How many youths, for example, think that uploading (or one of their friends uploading) a compromising picture to Facebook isn't a big deal because only their "friends" can see the photo? Or how about adults who naively leave a message on their Facebook wall about going on vacation, only to come back to a house which has been pillaged by burglars? A lot of people simply don't understand how easy it is for anyone to access personal information about them online and, worse, how easy it is for bad people to misuse that information, commit identity theft, etc.

I think you're misunderstanding me a bit here. Yes, many people currently disregard privacy out of ignorance, not choice. Wherever the distinction though, their children will see that lack of privacy as more normal. The fact that the parents didn't intend that to be the lessen doesn't really change the reality of what youths have learned from them.

chronomitch wrote:

Even if newer generations are more open about their sexuality, as you posit, that still doesn't mean they want their personal information leaking out. Just because someone is completely comfortable with their body doesn't mean they want potential stalkers and sexual predators ogling over their photos and gaining access to their real names, addresses, and phone numbers. There is still plenty of reason to safeguard personal information in a more sexually-liberated society than our current one.

And yet sexual predators and stalkers didn't have any problems victimizing people before the internet left all their personal info lying about. I think you're unnecessarily conflating two things here, information is a tool, what people do or don't do with it is another separate matter entirely.

Considering all of the embarrassing things that managed to find their way on Facebook (and I'm excluding the embarrasing things people post by themselves), I'm disappointed that nobody's called to have it shut down, or to put a bullet in Mark Zuckerburg's head. And people have committed suicide over what malicious people spread on Facebook, which has way more exposure on the web than IsAnybodyDown.

But then again, I should be thinking of the damsels.

Hmmmm. That is a very good way to articulate some of the dynamics of this discussion. I think the damsel thing is very much in play here, but not nearly as much as the denial about it. The comments about violence and castration supports you tremendously! We simply don't see as much overall headline noise over revenge against exes (non gendered outrage), versus revenge porn (damsels).

Check out this list of oh so nebulous tribes that people identify with

That's great. You haven't done anything to show how people taking photos of themselves for their own private use endangers those "tribes". You're just putting window dressing around the same "blame the victim" argument, and exploding it to make the ludicrous claim that not only are those same women to blame for their predicament, they're responsible for the damage it causes on the people they associate with.

And what to make of PeopleOfWalmart? Pretty consensual collection of pics they have there, don't they?

Not a fan, really.

Hypocrisy a bloo bloo bloo.

It's all you've got.

Edit: I suppose you could have a fun conversation about which is worse, non consensual pictures in public or consensual pictures in private, both being published on the interwebs. If I were looking to defend either one, which I'm not. So yeah, a bloo bloo away dipshit.

while it is wrong to post explicit images of anybody online, I have a hard time understanding why everybody turns on him, merely the man who hosts these images, and not the people who put such images on his site.

Is what he's doing any different than what Assange does with Wikileaks? Is he what he's doing any different than what Dotcom did with Megaupload? I think not, which is why I find it odd, to say the least to hear people want to do the same things to Brittain and IAD that they accuse and criticize the US government of wanting to do with Assange and Dotcom.

DaVuVuZeLa, gotta hand it to you - even though I heartily disliked your viewpoint in the Swartz discussion, you have really pointed out the stone cold truth in this one. Great work!!!

Props also to the folks who pointed out that nobody cares any more about bare ankles, etc. I have personally been on public beaches in Europe where topfree mothers play volleyball-type games (bouncing breasts, big time) while their children and the children of other families play happily nearby. In Germany there is a comparable situation but with full nudity (Munich's English Garden, which is similar to New York's Central Park - and by the way, New York State is legally topfree too). Public sex still induces a "moral panic" today, but that too will pass as time marches on.

while it is wrong to post explicit images of anybody online, I have a hard time understanding why everybody turns on him, merely the man who hosts these images, and not the people who put such images on his site.

Is what he's doing any different than what Assange does with Wikileaks? Is he what he's doing any different than what Dotcom did with Megaupload? I think not, which is why I find it odd, to say the least to hear people want to do the same things to Brittain and IAD that they accuse and criticize the US government of wanting to do with Assange and Dotcom.

DaVuVuZeLa, gotta hand it to you - even though I heartily disliked your viewpoint in the Swartz discussion, you have really pointed out the stone cold truth in this one. Great work!!!

Props also to the folks who pointed out that nobody cares any more about bare ankles, etc. I have personally been on public beaches in Europe where topfree mothers play volleyball-type games (bouncing breasts, big time) while their children and the children of other families play happily nearby. In Germany there is a comparable situation but with full nudity (Munich's English Garden, which is similar to New York's Central Park - and by the way, New York State is legally topfree too). Public sex still induces a "moral panic" today, but that too will pass as time marches on.

So until that time, whether or not your pictures in various states of undress are posted online without your consent is irrelevant? Yeah, no.

Even when that day comes, consent should (and likely would) still matter. Liberation of morals is good, but individuals still get to choose if and how they participate.

Check out this list of oh so nebulous tribes that people identify with

That's great. You haven't done anything to show how people taking photos of themselves for their own private use endangers those "tribes". You're just putting window dressing around the same "blame the victim" argument, and exploding it to make the ludicrous claim that not only are those same women to blame for their predicament, they're responsible for the damage it causes on the people they associate with.

Actually I did show how it endangers. But you are too emotionally reactive to think logically. What endangers a given tribe is what members of that tribe deem negative...some tribes (nudists) don't care about nude photos in private.. some tribes (internet startups) don't care if you smoke weed in private...they also don't care if those private activities are broadcast.

You also don't really understand the tribal concept or you wouldn't have gone off on a tirade about "blaming the victim" which has absolutely zero place in a tribal discussion.